If Hollywood wasn't losing badly, you wouldn't see articles like this. Hollywood will still be around, but they're transitioning into being a minor player.
We hear that a lot. If anyone ever received $1 in subsidy or service from government, they owe it back 10 million times over, payable mostly to non-workers and non-producers and the government workers who shepherd them. Meanwhile non-workers never owe anyone anything in return, not a dollar, not a thanks, not good civic behavior, not living a responsible life, not peace or domestic tranquillity, nothing, ever.
Shouldn't something like this actually be tried out before it's implemented by "candidates"? Or is the idealogy so self-reinforcing that empirical evidence is irrelevant?
This is a common argument. What you're really saying is that a small number of elite developers feeling good about themselves is better than good tools that prevent mistakes.
And the response is "No, it's not." We need more people to be able to produce more with fewer mistakes. The number of developers who write production code will always be more than the number of developers who write mistake-free code. The way to get more mistake-free code is to eliminate opportunities to make mistakes.
Shorter version: "We're trying to accomplish a goal. It's not all about you."
I'm not sure the idea is getting through. Some people might not want to sign up for 5 or 6 years of being treated badly every day by jerks.
Maybe you think that makes them insufficiently analytical or wimpy or whatever. But if you do, then you're intentionally excluding them from opportunities.
It takes a minimum level of humanity and/or empathy to understand. If you don't understand, but you want to, maybe ask someone around you to try to explain it to you.
There are no "views" (at least from students) in engineering.
People have views. They're not robots. You should start thinking of them as people. Then you might start to understand what "feel unwelcome" might mean.
Foreign students pay full tuition.
That's one big reason universities prefer them to domestic students.
Regardless of how you feel about foreign students, they are paying for their education. It is the non-foreign students getting the entitlements you seem to be complaining about.
Foreign students are great. It's not about the money. It's about the hostile environment.
If your sons (and daughters) work towards real degrees, they will feel perfectly welcome.
If colleges were more welcoming to diverse views, then more native students would have more opportunity. And if more native students had more opportunity, then you'd see fewer people concluding that "colleges are bad for the country". That was the point.
People wonder why they should vote to fund universities when their sons feel unwelcome there. People think they should benefit more directly rather than indirectly because some international students sometimes eventually become citizens.
Gay marriage is legal. Why can't we have peace now?
force women to carry babies
Abortion is legal (since 45 years ago). Why can't we have peace now?
erecting public monuments
Monuments are inert. They don't move or talk or collect a salary. Why can't we have peace?
people to be taught non-science in science classes
Students routinely ignore whatever lessons. Why can't we have peace now?
States trying to give tax payer funding to churches and calling them schools
Anywhere that lessons are taught is a school. Choose to attend the one you like. Ask about educational choice and everyone is for it, except the for left and the people on the incumbent schools' payroll.
Why can't we have peace?
Because you want a society perpetually at war with itself. And this shit is just today's excuse.
But after you're done congratulating yourself, what's the point? Is finger-pointing your end goal?
You live in a society with people who may not meet your standards [for whatever]. So?
Should you: - Move to a compound and only let in The Good People? - Complain and basically be a prick to them? - Murder them all? Or opress them in some way short of murdering them? - Send them to reeducation camps?
Please let us know what you and your intellect come up with.
Slashdot Mirror
If Hollywood wasn't losing badly, you wouldn't see articles like this. Hollywood will still be around, but they're transitioning into being a minor player.
banks' toxic assets were made good
We hear that a lot. If anyone ever received $1 in subsidy or service from government, they owe it back 10 million times over, payable mostly to non-workers and non-producers and the government workers who shepherd them. Meanwhile non-workers never owe anyone anything in return, not a dollar, not a thanks, not good civic behavior, not living a responsible life, not peace or domestic tranquillity, nothing, ever.
I understand. And I do have empathy.
Telling people they're stupid for not wanting to live and work in a hostile environment 24/7 for 5-6 years demonstrates otherwise.
At others' expense. Apparently you're in the "idealogy supersedes evidence" camp.
Shouldn't something like this actually be tried out before it's implemented by "candidates"? Or is the idealogy so self-reinforcing that empirical evidence is irrelevant?
That's very lawyerly. The people polled must not be lawyers, like you. Perhaps they have concerns that aren't legalistic.
This is a common argument. What you're really saying is that a small number of elite developers feeling good about themselves is better than good tools that prevent mistakes.
And the response is "No, it's not." We need more people to be able to produce more with fewer mistakes. The number of developers who write production code will always be more than the number of developers who write mistake-free code. The way to get more mistake-free code is to eliminate opportunities to make mistakes.
Shorter version: "We're trying to accomplish a goal. It's not all about you."
They are irrelevant to math/science/engineering.
I'm not sure the idea is getting through. Some people might not want to sign up for 5 or 6 years of being treated badly every day by jerks.
Maybe you think that makes them insufficiently analytical or wimpy or whatever. But if you do, then you're intentionally excluding them from opportunities.
It takes a minimum level of humanity and/or empathy to understand. If you don't understand, but you want to, maybe ask someone around you to try to explain it to you.
There are no "views" (at least from students) in engineering.
People have views. They're not robots. You should start thinking of them as people. Then you might start to understand what "feel unwelcome" might mean.
Foreign students pay full tuition.
That's one big reason universities prefer them to domestic students.
Regardless of how you feel about foreign students, they are paying for their education. It is the non-foreign students getting the entitlements you seem to be complaining about.
Foreign students are great. It's not about the money. It's about the hostile environment.
If your sons (and daughters) work towards real degrees, they will feel perfectly welcome.
So you're denying what others have experienced?
And now you're making up hypotheticals and redefining words. Because endless war is the only real thing you have to offer.
Does anyone want anything different? If someone does, they have to learn to oppose people like you.
But we have to protect the government system that doesn't educate kids ... or else kids won't be able to get an education.
Yeah, international grad students are good. But colleges should be more welcoming to (less of a hostile environment for) domestic students.
Sure you can. Just don't listen.
If colleges were more welcoming to diverse views, then more native students would have more opportunity. And if more native students had more opportunity, then you'd see fewer people concluding that "colleges are bad for the country". That was the point.
People wonder why they should vote to fund universities when their sons feel unwelcome there. People think they should benefit more directly rather than indirectly because some international students sometimes eventually become citizens.
Peace means peace. Live and let live. Not "give up ... ideas", but rather tolerate others' ideas. Not "fall in line", but coexist.
None of you seem to ever want peace.
Yeah, and companies can still do business when female employees are sexually harassed there. But a hostile work environment is still not tolerated.
International students are 70% of EE grad students.
You didn't say Electrical Engineering though, did you? And you didn't say foreign students weren't the vast majority in engineering classes either.
You keep trying to justify war. What's the plan for peace? Exterminate the other side? If not that, then what?
And if you can't answer, why shouldn't the other side continue fighting for their right to exist and not be oppressed as second-class citizens?
Colleges are also how we end up with electrical engineers and doctors.
If education were less hostile, then those opportunities wouldn't be almost exclusively for foreign students only.
The unintelligent will eventually starve and kill themselves with their own policies, you will sit back and let them?
Pretending to know the future is neither intelligent nor wise.
trying to ban people marrying the person
Gay marriage is legal. Why can't we have peace now?
force women to carry babies
Abortion is legal (since 45 years ago). Why can't we have peace now?
erecting public monuments
Monuments are inert. They don't move or talk or collect a salary. Why can't we have peace?
people to be taught non-science in science classes
Students routinely ignore whatever lessons. Why can't we have peace now?
States trying to give tax payer funding to churches and calling them schools
Anywhere that lessons are taught is a school. Choose to attend the one you like. Ask about educational choice and everyone is for it, except the for left and the people on the incumbent schools' payroll.
Why can't we have peace?
Because you want a society perpetually at war with itself. And this shit is just today's excuse.
And I used to be a professor.
Congrats on escaping ahead of the inquisition.
It's not a minor problem. If a "hostile work environment" isn't something we tolerate, why are you shrugging off a hostile school environment?
But after you're done congratulating yourself, what's the point? Is finger-pointing your end goal?
You live in a society with people who may not meet your standards [for whatever]. So?
Should you:
- Move to a compound and only let in The Good People?
- Complain and basically be a prick to them?
- Murder them all? Or opress them in some way short of murdering them?
- Send them to reeducation camps?
Please let us know what you and your intellect come up with.